Campaign 2002: Polling

Real Audio of Briefing

       MR. ZOGBY: Thank you, and thanks for coming. This is, personally, just a very sad moment. Senator Wellstone was a good man, and a good husband and a good father. I guess we just never know when our moment will be. But strictly on a personal note, I knew him as a very enthusiastic, even delightful champion of -- one could say liberal causes, but human causes, in the United States. And, I mean, to use the cliche, obviously he'll be missed. But this really is a horrible tragedy. And forgive me just that personal moment for a second. It's just -- just too sad.

       Where I'd like to begin is by sharing with you what I have found to be the mood of the voters as we head towards elections. American voters have gone through three distinct mood changes in the last 15 months. Prior to September 11th, 2001, middle class American voters -- that group in the $35,000-$40,000 to $75,000-$80,000 income range -- that's the group that gives the shape and the overall meaning of every national election that we have. Middle class voters were disconnected from their government. They had bought into the argument that government was not a problem-solver in their lives; that government spending translated into large deficits, and that deficits were a bad thing; and that, what Americans of the middle class needed to do was turn inward and find solutions by taking personal responsibility, and not relying on their government. That was translated into government at all levels -- federal, state and local.

       In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, that mood changed, and it changed dramatically. Americans immediately reconnected with their government, and they reconnected with all of the familiar institutions in their lives. First, with government. They did not clamor for Microsoft or General Motors to provide them comfort and security against terrorism, they clamored for their government to act. And so belief in government, and expectations for government to deliver grew, and grew enormously in the immediate aftermath. Americans reconnected with their government. And, in terms of the evidence, we saw that in the form of huge rises in positive numbers for the president, a president who had been actually wallowing in mediocrity prior to 9/11, with about a 50/50 positive-negative approval rating.

       His numbers, as you know, went up to 85, 87, in some cases even 90 percent positive job-performance rating. So did the job performance ratings for Congress, both parties and both political parties in the country.

       When I say that Americans needed to rely on their familiar institutions for comfort and security, I'm not only talking about politics; 9/11 exacerbated the recession that the United States was in. And while Americans told us that they were obviously very worried about the immediate, another attack or attacks by terrorists, they were also worried about their jobs and their businesses. But they also told us at least they had the comfort of knowing that their private investments, their 401(k)s, their pensions, were still in healthy shape. They relied, then, on the economy and the stock market.

       They relied on their family, as well. Many Americans told us that they were doing less business traveling. And the obvious reason -- you know, the one that jumped out at you -- was, of course, that there was fear in getting into an airplane in the intermediate aftermath. But the second-most important reason why people were unwilling to travel is that's they told us that they wanted to spend more time with their family. Americans were looking to their familiar institutions for comfort, security and stability. And that was the dominant mood in the country until the spring of 2002, when we began to see that mood unravel.

       By the spring, the war on terrorism had stalled. Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar had not been caught. The news of the war on terrorism had been relegated to the back pages of the newspaper and to after the commercial break in national news. There were stories that enraged Americans about the FBI and the CIA unable to cooperate and communicate with each other. In other words, Americans were beginning to sour on their government, a government that they had high expectations for in terms of delivery of comfort and security.

       At the same time, the spring of 2002, the Catholic Church scandals dominated the news. And while Americans were indeed spiritual and more spiritual in the intermediate aftermath of 9/11, whereas prior to that date, 42 percent of American adults had told us that they had attended a place of worship, after 9/11, 62 percent told us that they attended a place of worship in the previous seven days. Americans were souring on their government and on their church.

       At the same time, you have the WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, the whole -- the litany goes on. And the impact of that was clear. Americans watched these actions -- the accounting and CEO scandals -- at the same time that they watched their 401(k)s and their IRAs plummet to depths previously unimagined.

       And there was a very, very important linkage, and I'm saying this firmly because this will spell out what the mood change was all about. Sixty-six percent of likely voters today have 401(k)s and IRAs. That is the group that I am looking at as the group that will determine what happens in this election.

       By July of 2002, those investors got their quarterly reports -- the first post-Enron, the first post-Catholic-Church-scandal, the first post-stalling of war on terrorism -- and what they saw were ugly numbers, and they made linkages.

       This time the plummet in their future security was not caused by an Asian crisis, was not caused by the typical boom and bust of the economy and the stock market. Rather, bad people had brought them to where they are -- bad CEOs, bad accountants, bad priests and a government that did not deliver when they had expected highly from their government to deliver.

       Initially, I was looking at a good Democratic year until I started polling in 18 states, and what I discovered the overall mood of the country was politically was tantamount to an old Mexican peasant revolutionary slogan of about a hundred years ago. The slogan is, simply, "Down with whoever's up." That's the mood that the country is in today, at least so far, as we head into an election. No incumbent running for the United States Senate in a competitive race is safe.

       Many governors are not safe. Many early front-runners are not safe.

       There are a lot of elections. Let me quickly go through them. Unfortunately, I always start with the Senate and with Minnesota. I had Paul Wellstone leading, but I also had 54 percent of Minnesota voters telling me that it was time for someone new.

       In South Dakota, Tim Johnson. Sometimes he leads by two, sometimes he's down by two. But listen to this rule in my business. We call it the "incumbent rule." And this is one way to read polls that involve incumbents. In a two-way race, if an incumbent is polling under 50 percent and leading by less than 10, historically, in seven out of 10 instances, the incumbent has lost.

       Tim Johnson is in trouble in South Dakota. Tim Hutchinson, the Republican, is in trouble in Arkansas. Jean Carnahan, the Democrat, is in trouble in Missouri. Wayne Allard, the Republican, is in trouble in Colorado. Max Cleland, the Democrat in Georgia, is in trouble. Those are the main incumbent races, and incumbents of both parties are fighting for their political lives.

       Among governors, because most governors up for reelection this year are Republican, the Republicans stand to lose a number of those governors -- no doing of their own. In many states because of the recession and because of the state of the stock market. States all over the country will soon experience huge budget deficits, which means less spending for education, less spending on needed programs. And voters are going to be foul when it comes to governors.

       Jeb Bush is in trouble. He leads in my poll by three points, as of two weeks ago -- 48 to 45. When we ask, "Does Jeb Bush deserve to be reelected?" -- 45 percent say yes; 48 percent say no, it's time for someone new. Not good for Jeb Bush.

       George Pataki, one of the, quote, "heroes" of 9/11, George Pataki's numbers are very soft. And I just tell you, I am polling for one of his opponents. However, even with that said, only 33 percent believe that George Pataki deserves to be reelected.

       Let's look quickly at some non-incumbent races. Front-runners are in trouble as well.

       Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was already measuring the drapes in the governor's mansion in Maryland. She's down by three points.

       Mitt Romney, the hero of the 2002 Olympics -- forgive the metaphor -- was expecting to skate across the country into the governor's mansion in Massachusetts. Down by two points.

       Down with whoever's up. I tell incumbents when they call, this is not the time to be saying, "Send me back, I have experience," or, "Vote for me, I'm in charge." That is the wrong message to be sending to voters.

       The burden is still on the challengers. There are many local issues out there, the most important of which is the economy. And the most important subcontext issue in the economy are the investors, the ones with the 401(k)s. About two-thirds of likely voters nationally, and about -- give or take a few points -- two-thirds of likely voters in virtually every state that I'm polling.

       That's how I see this election year. I will offer a prediction: I have no idea what's going to happen. You heard it here first. But if the election were held today -- and it's not today -- but if the election were held today, it looks like the Republicans would pick up one seat in the Senate. That is enough for the Republicans to take control there. If that one pickup is, as it looks like it may be, Jim Talent, the Republican in Missouri, then Jim Talent could technically take office November 6th, meaning that within this session, Trent Lott would become the majority leader, and Daschle the minority leader. The issue is whether or not the governor and the attorney general -- one a Democrat, the other a Republican -- in Missouri sign off on the Talent election, if he is indeed elected.

       There you have it. That's my brief synopsis and overview of the election. I've bet you've got a lot of questions.

       Q Lambros Papantoniou, Elettheros Typos Greek Daily, Athens.

       Sir, what is your prediction for New Jersey state? It's a very close year.

       MR. ZOGBY: Okay. Yeah. I hesitate to predict --

       Q Why? (Inaudible.)

       MR. ZOGBY: Because this is what I do.

       Q Yeah. (Chuckles.)

       MR. ZOGBY: Because I could be wrong. (Laughs.) No, I hesitate to predict, because -- let me give it to you this way, generally speaking. In 1998 we had a number of very close Senate and gubernatorial races -- very close. And 8 percent of the voters told us that they made up their minds the morning of the election. So I am of the belief that anything can happen right up to the last minute.

       In terms of New Jersey, I strongly suspect that Lautenberg will win. And the reason why is, by and large, voters in New Jersey have been voting Democrat.

       Number two, they really don't care about process issues for very long. Look, we still have President Bush, and you don't hear people crying in the streets today and saying, "Oh, my God, he's not really our president." It -- you know, life goes on.

       In addition to all of that, Doug Forrester to date has been an empty suit. He has been -- he was the un-Torricelli, and with Torricelli gone, there was very little left. And whoever is handling his campaign, by telling him to go after Lautenberg on the basis of missile defense, hasn't spent very much time in New Jersey lately.

       You have a follow-up, and I'll be shorter.

       Q One more question. After today's tragedy in Minnesota, what is your prediction? What is going to happen between the two parties?

       MR. ZOGBY: I honestly -- you know, that really requires some reflection. We do recall that Jean Carnahan, in kind of a small burst of sympathy for her lost husband, the former governor of Missouri, actually won the election. You may have -- you may have -- that same situation this time around.

       Coleman has been slipping in the polls. And even though a majority had told us it was time for someone new, Coleman -- two things happened to cause Coleman's numbers to go down.

       One was that he said that Paul Wellstone opposed the war in Iraq. As soon as he said that, Paul Wellstone's numbers went up. Paul Wellstone had not been doing well enough among his own Democratic Party. That brought Democrats home, because Democrats oppose the war in Iraq.

       Coleman's numbers also went down because Wellstone's advertising had shown pictures of Coleman endorsing Wellstone in previous elections and endorsing Clinton, when he was a Democrat.

       And so -- yeah.

       Q Bogdan Kipling, Kipling News Service of Canada. Sir, how do you read the impact of the just-ended tragedy in Montgomery County, in Maryland, on the election in Maryland State, in both the House of Representatives elections and I thinking about the Connie Morella and, of course, Ms. Kennedy-Townsend.

       MR. ZOGBY: Okay, good question. I'm not sure that I can address all the details within the Missouri -- I'm sorry, the Maryland state delegates.

       But in terms of the broader federal level, there had been a sense that Ms. Kennedy-Townsend would pick up support on the gun control issue. I don't see any evidence of that right now. In addition to that, Connie Morella is -- the last poll that I saw, was down by two percentage points. Most importantly, incumbent rule, she was down 43 to 41, so she wasn't even leading, and polling only 41. That's a very close race, and I wouldn't bet one way or another.

       But frankly, I'm not sure that the sniper issue is going to become much of a political issue at all. I think it's the economy.

       Q Al Bashir (sp) from Sudan. I have two questions. And I can see that you are reluctant to get into predictions, so I'm not going there. How about issues and the pressure groups, the big pressure groups? The other question is about the Black Caucus; is there going to be any change? Do you see any?

       MR. ZOGBY: In terms of the big issues, the number-one and -two issues in the campaign, you know, are the economy and the war. And then in the second tier, you have health care, Social Security and education. The difficulty here -- and I've entitled all of what I preface my comments with -- I call it the politics of disappointment. I talk to leaders in both parties, and I've advised the Democrats, what you need to focus on is, "Are you better off than you were two years ago?"; and the answer is no, and to remind people. The problem, though, even with that strategy, is that no one really expects the economy to get better under the Democrats.

       When we ask, "Which party does a better job on the economy?" -- it's tied.

       In addition to that, certainly no one expects either party, and rightly so, to be able to bring back the stock market -- at least in the short run. And so even with the economy more than war as the dominant issue, I don't see either party making any gains or trumping on any particular issue. I think by and large, it's an anti-incumbent year. I think it's another tie, as we've had the last three elections, in terms of the overall popular vote. And then from there, I think there will be some local issues that will tip the balance one way or another in a number of House seats.

       But -- now you were also asking about the Black Caucus. You know, I really have not been following every House race closely enough. But I certainly -- I don't anticipate -- because of the redistricting, I don't anticipate there to be any dramatic changes in the makeup or the number of the Black Caucus in Congress.

       Q I'm Tatsushi Doi of Japanese newspaper Sankei. I have two quick questions. One is, how do you see the House race as a whole? Do you see any potential for the power shift still?

       And secondly, it's totally unrelated, I want to know about the situation in the New Hampshire Senate race, which is pretty -- (inaudible).

       MR. ZOGBY: Sure. Okay. First and foremost on the House, I think basically with a tie vote, which it will be about 48 to 48, with 3 percent or so Green and 1 percent Libertarian nationwide, it all comes down to about 15 to 17 seats total. Almost as many previously Democratic seats as Republican seats up for real hotly competitive election. Under those circumstances, the Democrats have to win just about every one of those seats.

       I think from the vantage point of today, from the vantage point of today, that the Republicans either pick up two seats or possibly lose two seats. More than likely, they pick up two seats. I don't see the House changing hands this year.

       Now, I am polling for Sununu, just so that you'll know. It's a very close race. There's one poll that has Sununu up by 22, and there's another poll that has Shaheen up by five. Neither of them are right, I don't think. I think the race is a dead-heat right now.

       Thank you.

       Q (Name inaudible) -- Financieele Dagblad, Amsterdam. Does the present mood of the voters tell you anything about the mood in 2004?

       MR. ZOGBY: Yeah. The present mood, that's an anti-incumbent mood, could be still the dominant mood as we move into 2004. Note that we have had three distinct mood changes, though, just in the last 15 months, so anything can truly happen.

       When we asked voter today whether or not President Bush deserves to be re-elected, 53 percent say yes, he does -- 53 percent. That's a bounce for the president, because several weeks ago, it was 48 percent, which was a very important number. That is the percentage of votes that he received in 2000.

       With that said, if this mood does continue, or some version of this mood continues, I think we're probably looking at a very competitive presidential race.

       Now, the logical follow-up question to that is who? And, as I look at it, I think it's very hard to see Al Gore not getting the Democratic nomination, for a number of reasons. One is that he can make the case, certainly, to Democrats, I got more votes than any other candidate in American history, and I won the popular vote. Number two, he has the ability to raise a lot of money, and he has name recognition.

       That leads into point three. The Democrats have front-loaded their primaries for 2004, meaning that shortly after -- there's Iowa, one week later, there's New Hampshire, one week after that, there are about a dozen major states all over the United States holding primaries. Meaning that the person who goes in with the name recognition and the money really has to be seen, clearly, as the front-runner.

       So, let me explain that just a little bit further. A little bit of a history lesson. Not very long ago, in the late '60s and in the '70s, it was enough for a candidate to do better than expected in New Hampshire -- not win -- Gene McCarthy did not win the primary in New Hampshire in 1968, nor did George McGovern. They did better than expected. And as a result, they got what folks call the three Ms -- media, money and momentum. Which meant that out of New Hampshire, with the publicity and the sense of momentum, they also got enough money to carry them into the next state or two. And then winning that, enough momentum to carry them into the next five states.

       I think that John McCain shows that the system is different. As he ran in 2000, he won that major victory in New Hampshire, but there wasn't enough money in order for him to counter the front-runner. And he couldn't pick up enough money to run in a number of states at the same time. That's -- what you have now is the Democrats even making it more difficult for somebody to raise enough money in a short time span to run competitively.

       Q I'm Gabor Horvath (sp) from Nepszabadsag, Hungary. Could you please give us a couple of figures on the support of -- of U.S. support of military action in Iraq and its effect on the outcome?

       MR. ZOGBY: Sure. My poll was taken about -- almost two weeks ago, and it shows that 67 percent support a war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. Please note that language -- "a war." Seventy percent said to us that they believed that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

       However -- and these are on my website, Zogby.com; I'm not raising money -- when you ask voters, "What if this war took ground troops, American ground troops," the support went down to 45 percent.

       What if there were hundreds of American casualties? Support went down to about 39 percent.

       Thousands of American casualties? Thirty-seven percent.

       What if the United States decided to go it alone, without the international support? Support was down 38, 39 -- to 38, 39 percent.

       Would you send your son or daughter to fight this war? Forty- five percent, yes, and 46 percent, no.

       Now if you check out the website, you may find that I was off a percent here or there, but not much than a -- more than a percent here or there, the point being that there is not a groundswell of support for war in Iraq.

       Now with that said, let me take it one step further. There was also not a groundswell of public support for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The difference, however, was that a case was to be made about the invasion of a sovereign country.

       And number two, as we discovered only later, through the strong efforts of a public relations company here, there were powerful visuals in terms of what the Iraqi invasion meant, visuals not quite like, but somewhat like, visuals in Bosnia or Somalia. What's missing here in terms of war against Iraq is a powerful visual, a new event or any sense or action recently on the part of Saddam Hussein -- meaning an invasion of some sort or attack of some sort. And so the burden will be on the administration to have to supply that.

       Now if I could take my pollster hat off for one second and just be a historian for a moment -- which I am; I'm not a statistician -- my concern with the vote in Congress of two weeks ago is simply this: that our Congress has legitimated a first strike, a preemptive strike. From here on in, that means legitimation of preemptive strike to any leader anywhere in the world as sanctioned by the U.S. Congress. And personally, I'm a bit concerned about that.

       I'm back to being a pollster again.

       Q (Name inaudible) -- Italian News Agency, ANSA. Two questions, the first one related to the presidential race in 2004. How could the results of the elections impact on the presidential aspirations of other Democratic likely candidates?

       And the second on Iraq. From what you are describing just now, how could you explain this difference between the American public opinion and the large vote in the Senate and the House for the war?

       MR. ZOGBY: Okay. Let me just continue with Iraq first. Very simply, as we're heading towards an election -- I had a chance to speak to the Senate Democrats a couple weeks ago, in fact, at a noon lunch; and then later on that evening into the next -- early next morning, they voted. And the sense that they had was that some members of Congress were burned in 1991 when they debated against Operation Desert Storm and they gave all the appearance then of being unpatriotic. And that was not during an election cycle.

       They felt that by giving the president the green light this year, that it could not be used against them during the election cycle; that ads could not be run saying that they were un-American, or against the war on terrorism, or whatever. That's the biggest differential there.

       Secondly, in terms of the war -- I'm sorry -- in terms of the presidential election and this year, well, I think, to be sure, if the Republicans were to lose control -- which I don't think appears likely, but if they were to lose control of the House of Representatives, that would have a negative impact on the president of the United States. If the Democrats were not to gain control, or even to not gain seats, I think that would have a negative impact on Congressman Gephardt, minority leader, and, for that matter, quite possibly Tom Daschle in the Senate. And so in that sense, these elections will be watched very closely.

       Now, historically, the party outside of the White House loses seats -- I'm sorry -- the party outside of the White House picks up seats. This may be one of those different kinds of years.

       Q Thomas Gorguissian, Al Wafd, Egypt.

       MR. ZOGBY: (Off mike.)

       Q John, as an historian and pollster, if you put the "politics of disappointment," as you described, versus the politics of anxiety, who wins?

       MR. ZOGBY: Thomas, that's a very good question. Politics of disappointment is indeed the politics of anxiety; meaning that neither party wins. Now, let's think about this. When we ask voters today, "Will there be another terrorist attack?" -- just as many today say yes as said so in mid-September. High anxiety there.

       "Are you worried about your job?" -- just as many today are worried about their job as were in the immediate aftermath of September 11th.

       "Are you worried about your 401(k) and your future security?" -- security meaning financial security -- more so are worried today than were worried in September.

       The dominant issue here is insecurity. And frankly, I don't think, in terms of an election issue, that going to war helps the Republicans. I think it gave the president some stability in his ratings, you know. I thought that the president would move down into the mid-50s by now; he's still at 62, 63. So I think it bought him a little bit of time. I have very little doubt that his numbers will go back down -- or will go down into 55, 56, 57.

       But the point being that neither party is positioned to make any real gain. The only gain will be the very modest gains that I mentioned -- a one seat, two seats. I think we have another tie. And that's essentially the politics of disapppointment.

       Q Just a quick question. Sudan again -- Al-Bashir. What is the probability of surprise? Did you see any -- something that's really surprise?

       MR. ZOGBY: Okay, sure. If our mood has changed three times, it could change again. Now, we live in an era of Fox and CNN and MSNBC. If it's an issue at 7:00 in the morning and not resolved by noon, it's a major issue; it's a global crisis of unprecedented proportions by the time Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather get on the air and it hasn't been resolved yet.

       Something like that can happen. A little girl is kidnapped and taken across state lines and is missing, and all of a sudden crime becomes the top issue, child welfare becomes the issue. It is possible.

       Is it possible that the stock market will turn around? Boy, if I were good at that, I'd be on Wall Street right now and not at this microphone. I don't think that's going to happen.

       Is there the possibility of one surprise? The Republicans tell me that they're looking at Iowa and Greg Ganske versus Tom Harkin as possibly the race, sleeper race, that nobody is paying attention to that they might win.

       I think that's highly -- highly -- unlikely. Not that Tom Harkin didn't do a very dumb thing by that tape.

       Surprise is possible. Voters -- those undecided voters on Sunday, the last day that I'm going to poll, could decide on Tuesday, and I don't know how they're going to decide. That could be another surprise. But, I don't know. That's about as good an answer I think as I can give.

       Q Who are the voters likely to get mad at, particularly the ones with retirement plans and investments and so on, who are they going to get mad at, if they remember, or do they remember, that the stock market started tanking on Bill Clinton's watch?

       MR. ZOGBY: Very good question.

       Q And that no conceivable way could you explain that George Bush, or the Republicans are somehow responsible for the scandals, because the scandals were ripened and came to fruition, really, on Bill Clinton's watch.

       MR. ZOGBY: Sir, that's why I --

       Q Do they remember?

       MR. ZOGBY: No, that's why I say that no party is positioned to take advantage this year. You know, I have counseled Democrats to say, "Are you better off than you were two years ago?" But I don't believe it necessarily works. By the same token, I don't believe that Republicans can go out there and say, "We're better, we're meaner, we brought Osama bin Laden home" -- you know -- they can't do that either. Neither party really gains. The politics of disappointment, to me, is that voters this year are members of the pox party. A pox on both their houses.

       Can I explain something from the business world? Most of the work I do is corporate, and I do a lot of what's known as customer satisfaction surveys. And we do -- when we do customer satisfaction surveys, we have what we call gap analysis. I will read -- or our people on the telephones will read a whole list of customer service items -- friendliness, responsiveness, you know, that sort of thing, delivery of service -- and we'll ask people on a scale of one to five, with five being the highest, how would you rate your expectations of these? Not important or most important, and give it a score.

       We then go back and read the same items, and we say now, give us your rating of the performance of this company. If there are low expectations for friendliness, and friendliness gets a low performance rating, not a problem. It's not a gap.

       If there are high expectations for friendliness and a low rating, then I go in and say, "You folks have a problem."

       And I'm telling you that after 9/11 voters started believing again. They wanted their government to deliver them security and stability, and they are disappointed that it did not happen. Their expectations were high. The delivery wasn't there.

       Now what I'm also saying is that I don't think that the president necessarily gets bad marks. I don't think Dick Gephardt gets bad marks. I think the, quote, "system" gets bad marks.

       Q How do you assess the Latino vote in this election vis-a- vis to the two parties, the Republican and Democrat?

       MR. ZOGBY: I see very little gains on the part of the Republicans as far as the Latino vote is concerned. Remember that with all of the fanfare in the year 2000, depending on which of the two exit polls you were looking at, George W. Bush did not do, really, any better than his father did among Latino voters, 2000 versus 1992. That's number one.

       Number two is that even though you have overtures by Republicans and you also have a very important historical precedent -- which is Michael Bloomberg in New York, Republican, getting just as many votes among New York City Latinos as did his opponent, Mark Green, the Democrat -- the fact of the matter is, in my focus groups that I did in 2000 -- and I still believe that these are accurate today -- Latinos told us, "Yes, there are some things that we agree with the Republicans on" -- guns, in some instances; abortion; family-oriented social issues -- but they also told us that Proposition 187 in California described for them what they believed the tone of the Republican Party was, which is a party that is against aliens. And so there are many who tell us that "yes, I can agree with Republicans on issues. I just can't see myself pulling the lever for Republicans." I don't see any real gains, and no radical changes, no.

       Q What kind of numbers, if any, do you get out of California for the governor's race?

       MR. ZOGBY: Talk about pox on both houses! California defines it. I'm not polling California.

       None of my clients are particularly interested. It looks like Gray Davis by default. It looks like Simon has picked up a few points but is still down by about nine or 10 points against Davis.

       The amazing thing here is that you've got Davis polling 41 or 42 percent, and -- which is awful. I said Davis, didn't I? Forty-one, 42 percent. And Simon polling at about 31 or 32 percent, which is even worse. A large undecided.

       There was a time when it looked like Simon was actually leading in the polls, but gee, timing -- what a terrible time to be convicted of fraud -- right in the middle of an election. Terrible timing. You're supposed to be convicted after you're elected, you know, and then you blame it on -- "oh, it was a combination of drugs and alcohol that made me do it." Something like that. Anyway.

       MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

       MR. ZOGBY: Thank you.

       Q Thank you.